TRAVELLER Digest 580

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) tech dependencies by shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
  2) Traveller's Future by mhclark@iastate.edu
  3) Re: TRAVELLER digest 579 by htp@dove.mtx.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
  4) Re: Fall of GDW by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  5) Re: Why streamline ships? by Craig Berry <cberry@hollywood.cinenet.net>
  6) TNE Rules by 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
  7) Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various... by PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
  8) Using FF&S with MegaTraveller by 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
  9) RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various... by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
 10) Re: TRAVELLER digest 575 by Simon.Harding@vuw.ac.nz
 11) *The* Debate... by "M.A. Trickett" <mat3@leicester.ac.uk>
 12) Several Responses by anwfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 03 Feb 96 00:16:57 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: tech dependencies
Message-ID: <yiRPiD6w165w@krypton.rain.com>

"Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu> writes:

>Rather than getting into that debate, it occurred to me that it should be
>possible to come up with a "dependent" chart of technological advances
>which would allow a GM to determine just how far a specific culture (one
>worth the work involved) has come and what technologies are
>(indigenously[sp?]) available.
>
>This chart would strongly resemble the advances chart for Sid Meier's
>Civilization, with advances allowing certain components (i.e. gravitics
>allowing grav vehicles, Internal Combustion allowing Automobiles, etc)
>with a hearty set of "alternate" technologies which may have never
>appeared on Earth or perhaps only as curiosities.

Well, the "chart" needs to be designed rather differently. To use your
example, you can build automobiles with internal combusion engines, but
you can also build them with lightweight steam engines. The inportant
part is the power-to-weight ratio :-)

So (just like in the real world) there are *multiple* ways to do just
about anything.

>the point is, rather than specific tech levels being required for the
>presence of certain items, it is the prerequisite inventions which are
>required.  This means that, as one arguer seemed to be saying, some
>inventions may appear well before the TL of introduction.

"Inventions" is a poor term. Techniques and materials probably fits
better. And it makes it clearer that the item can be supplied from
outside rather than being "home grown".

>By building such a chart and associating rising rules of probability for
>each time period after the invention of all prerequisites, it may be
>possible to get a good picture of a cultures technological history to
>work with.

>This chart would be unlike the Civilization chart in that "cultural"
>advances would be purged; is religon really a prerequisite for anything?
>can it be said to appear at any particular time or have prerequisites?
>(ability to build temples maybe?)

"Cultural" type stuff *does* have place. Especially for the cases where
the technology is "home grown". It's arguable that monotheism is a
prequisite for the idea that there is *a* set of rules that describe
how the world works, for example.

>Reaction? Suggestions? Volunteers?

We'll need to have *several* "classes" of item. As an example:

Computers (ie ability to do complex calculations):
1. brute force
abacus/adding machine, with *lots* of clerks
2. "pushing the limits"
Babbage & difference engine
3. crude, but usable
Eniac, etc
3. "works well"
everything from early transitor based systems thru
early desktops
4. "special bonus"
the point where you can throw the item in to compensate
for the lack of something else (ie building in a
microprocessor just to compensate for the fact that a
device is difficult to control at the current "state of
the art") Most "fly-by-wire" systems are like this.

Note that the "Babbage engine" is using machining at a "special bonus"
level just to be able to function...

At the moment we've got several "computer" technologies that are
somewhere between class 2 and class 3. Fluidic computers, optical
computers, TIMMs, etc.

BTW, note that class 1 and class 4 are opposites of a sort. Class 1 is
not *having* the "tech", and finding a way to get around the lack at
huge time and money. Class 4 is just the opposite. It lets you do
something so well you can compensate for lacks elsewhere.

A space shot requires some extensive calculations. You *can* do it by
the "army of clerks" method, as long as you understand oribital
mechanics. On the other hand, if you have microprocessors, but *don't*
understand orbital mechanics, you could build a ship that kept making
course corrections until it reached the destination. Maybe even one
that would figure out how to "optimize" the corrections by noting what
earlier ones did. It wouldn't be as efficient, but it *would* work usably.

So the "rules" need to allow for the possibility of "getting around"
the lack of an "imortant" item, if you have something else to
substitute. At the same time there *may* be items that can't be worked
around.

I have a feeling that doing this *right* could be a rather complex task.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 20:33:46 CST
From: mhclark@iastate.edu
To: xboat@MPGN.COM
Cc: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller's Future
Message-ID: <9602040233.AA13474@las2.iastate.edu>

  Well, I never thought folks would get so passionate about a RPG, but I
guess if you spend enough money on stuff your brain turns off.  :-)

  Anyway, as a Traveller fan since 1979 (and an owner of way too much
stuff - can you say every issue of JTAS and TD?) I could care less about
what Marc Miller does with the game.  I'll buy whatever he publishes, and
I'll learn to like it.  I have loved all three incarnations of the game
so far, and as long as the next game bears any similarity to what I've
learned to love, well, my wallet will be open.

  The only essential central theme will be the Traveller history - as
long as Marc includes that, I'll be happy.  The rule system is not really
important - if rules were important T$R would have gone broke long ago.
Every one of us has tweaked things to make them work for us, and I'm sure
any future edition will generate a chorus of suggestions as how to make
it "perfect."  The best thing we can do is buy, buy, buy - that will keep
the game alive.

  So, as someone else said, stop complaining, and start posting some fun
stuff!

---
Mark H Clark
mhclark@iastate.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 15:03:20 +1030
From: htp@dove.mtx.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 579
Message-ID: <v01530501ad39d81515ed@[203.15.30.42]>

Phillip McGregor:

>Just an idea that came to me recently - why is there a requirement for space-
>ships to be streamlined in all versions of Traveller if they wish to make a
>planetary landing on a world with an atmosphere?

Because they would burn up on re-entry?

>Or, to be more accurate, as seems to be the case in all versions of Traveller
>*except* TNE.

Ommission, typo; maybe they thought that it was such an accepted and
logical assumption that it did not need reiteration?

>What am I getting at here? Well, consider this, in CTrav and MTrav, Maneuver
>Drives are basically reactionless thrusters and Contragravity lifters.

Pardon?  Maneuver drives were HEPlaR (High-Efficiency Plasma Recombustion)
drives the last time I looked.  These require reaction mass.  Hence, they
require fuel.  They have *always* required fuel.

ContraGrav is separate and used *mainly* for landing and docking
procedures, where more precise maneuvering is required than can be mustered
by the maneuver drive.

You can, I suppose, lump them together - but they are distinct units with
distinct functions.

>They enable spacecraft to reach fairly decent speeds in atmosphere, if they
>are streamlined. But why should this be the case? From what we know of these
>drives, they have no "stall speed" (none is mentioned anywhere) ... no minimum
>speed at which they have to move the craft or it will fall out of the sky.
>Ergo, even if the craft is shaped like a (large) housebrick, then the only
>limitation on its ability to maneuver in atmosphere should be the maximum
>speed it can achieve before it starts taking friction/heat damage. In other
>words, if you *had* a spacecraft the shape of a housebrick, then why can't
>you simply de-orbit at, say, 100 mph? So it takes an hour to land, so what?

ContraGrav drives are inefficient in areas where there is little gravity to
"contra".  In orbit, there is less gravity than there is on the surface of
a planet.  What this means is that if you drop from orbit, your ContraGrav
will probably not be able to stop you from accelerating *well* beyond
100mph.  Streamlining becaomes very important at this point, because not
only will it stop your hull from over-heating on re-entry (and turning you
into a crisp), but it will allow you to maintain navigational *CONTROL* of
your vessel.  In a maneuver such as making or breaking orbit, control is
extremely important.

ContraGrav and all of the maneuver drives in the universe won't do you a
scrap of good if your craft is out of control in a three-dimensional
tumble.

>Obviously, no-one from the design team ever considered the implications of the
>matter!

Oh, I think they did.

>Even the argument that the unstreamlined vessels do not have the
>internal bracing to withstand the gravity of a world they land on obviously
>cannot hold water, as they are capable of withstanding at least 1G moves with
>whatever they use for MDrives!

If a fighter loses control and starts plummeting toward the earth at a
constant acceleration of 1G, it's speed will increase until terminal
velocity is reached.  At this speed, momentum and moments of inertia are
all important and generate stresses on the craft well in excess of 1G.  The
pilots, strapped in a flight chair and wearing pressurised flight suits,
can experience in the vicinity of 10G in an uncontrolled tumble.  Key
structural points can experience forces *orders of magnitude* greater.

1G of constant one-dimensional (up-down) acceleration is totally different
to 1G of three-dimensional (uncontrolled) acceleration.

>And if you look at CG Lifters (FF&S page #75), then you'd note that the
>description there even notes that CG lifters allow a craft to simply "float"!

Since you are in control (and barely moving), this would be a trivial exercise.

>This means that even Gas-Giant refuelling is possible to completely unstream-
>lined vessels. They simply waft down into the upper reaches of the atmosphere
>and pump fuel aboard (rather than make a high-speed skimmer type pass through
>the atmosphere)!

The deal with gas giants is that they have extremely volatile atmospheres
with sustained winds at *hundreds* of kilometres per second.  Yes, it is
theoretically possible to sit in one place and pump what you need on board.
However, not only would this be much, much slower, but you would be
constantly fighting extreme (essentially chaotic) atmospheric conditions in
the process.  You would be exposing yourself, and your ship, to extreme
risk for a protracted period of time in a chaotic environment.

Compare that with a quick, high-speed, controlled, pass with fuel scoops.

>Isn't it wonderful how you can break the rules apart when they give too much
>detail!

It can be amusing - providing that you haven't missed something.

>Why isn't/hasn't it been done? One possibility is that it may require some
>higher than normal degree of piloting skill ... unlikely, as any decent
>computer should be able to handle something that simple. Worse, on most
>civilised worlds they would presumably even have some sort of ground based
>assistance for controlling the approach of such vehicles.

You have a point here.  It is possible, theoretically, although I'd huess
that the modifiers on the Interface/Grav skill would be horrendous.  So
bad, in fact, that sane individuals wouldn't even consider it a viable
option.

>So, no longer need civilian craft be streamlined to land on a planet!

Until they think of a way to stop a falling brick from going into an
uncontrolled spin without adding stabalisers, I think it would be in the
best interests of the craft , the crew, and the cargo, to stick with
accepted aerodynamic principles and practice.

>I'm sure this will cause various people to spit chips and rant that it isn't
>Traveller "canon" or that it shouldn't be allowed because it's not what GDW
>meant. For the former, sorry, it *is* canon, whether you like it or not! For
>the latter, sure, I'll even agree that it isn't what GDW meant, but so what?
>It's what the damn fool rules and explanations of same *allow*!

Um, I won't comment on this except to say that we use logic over-rides in
our campaign.  If you are more interested in the letter of the law rather
than the spirit in which it was intended, then that's your choice.  Don't
happen to be a lawyer, do you Phil?

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|               Henry Penninkilampi (htp@dove.mtx.net.au)                |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Join "EvangeList", Guy Kawasaki's (un)official Apple list-server of good|
|news about Apple, Macintosh, and third-party developers. To subscribe to|
|EvangeList, send an e-mail to: listproc@solutions.apple.com, and include|
|in the body of the message the text: Subscribe Macway <Your Name>       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+



------------------------------

Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 21:54:23 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Fall of GDW
Message-ID: <1.5.4b11.32.19960204045423.006fa0fc@lynx.csn.net>

At 05:26 pm 2/3/96 -0500, Leigh O'Neil wrote:
>"Schalli Free" -statement found on every tuna can in the RC

        LOL!

Oh, yeah. Liked the rest of the message, too.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com        http://www.whip.com/~goldendj/index.html

  "Faith is not belief without knowledge.
   Faith is trust without reservation." -- unknown


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 23:06:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@hollywood.cinenet.net>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Why streamline ships?
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960203224638.22271B-100000@hollywood.cinenet.net>


Phillip McGregor made some excellent points on the pointlessness of
atmospheric streamlining for spacecraft.  In summary, he points out that
if you can hover in a g-field using CG, you can re-enter at 100 mph, waft
down gently, and not worry about what shape your vehicle is.

I've always thought exactly the same thing!  Especially during the CT/MT
"thruster plate" era, when delta-vee was practically free and limitless
(ah, those were the days...), I could never understand why pilots of
unstreamlined craft didn't just match speeds with the upper atmosphere,
then drift "straight down" (in the rotating planet's frame, of course) at
some nice, gentle speed for a soft landing.  Unless starship exteriors are
made of spun sugar, I can't imagine typical atmospheric stresses on an
essentially motionless object being a problem.  Now, land in a hurricane,
and you're in trouble -- but that's probably true for streamlined craft,
as well.

Now, if you go to limited delta-vee but *without* CG, you have a reason to
streamline ships...it costs way too much reaction mass to do a slow
powered landing (or takeoff) on a sizeable world.  You use streamlining to
get fast ascents to orbit, and aerobraking-assisted descents...because
you're watching every gram of fuel.

However, add CG into the equation, and this logic breaks down.  Decelerate
to a halt in the upper atmosphere, turn on your CG...presto, you're a
zeppelin.  Waft down at a nice lazy pace...CG is *cheap* to run,
energy-wise, and eats *no* reaction mass.  To slightly misquote Douglas
Adams, "it hangs in mid-air in much the way bricks don't."

Now, if you're a *military* vehicle, "hanging in mid-air" is equivalent to
"upcoming cloud of expanding plasma."  So for fighting craft,
streamlining, even airframing, make perfect sense.  You want atmospheric
maneuverability if folks are lobbing weapons at you.  But for merchants,
shuttles, liners, and virtually every other civilian spacecraft,
streamlining makes no sense.  Even if you want to get from point A to
point B on the same planet, it makes more sense to return to space, travel
to a point over your destination, stop, and drift gently down again.  If
you absolutely *insist* on atmospheric travel, I'll bet all but the
strangest unstreamlined hulls could still manage a couple hundred kph in a
standard atmosphere without shedding antennae and such along the flight
path.

So, what gives?  Anybody have a good explanation for the Traveller rules
on this subject?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Berry                      CompuServe cancellation ID: 11089132
cberry@cinenet.net               Don't support Net censorship!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 11:13:05 -0500
From: 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: TNE Rules
Message-ID: <199602041613.LAA24876@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

   If I'm not mistaken, I beleive in the last message I saw posted to this
list by Marc Miller, he said that he did have the rights to the "TRAVELLER
House System", as he called it, but that he didn't have to use it if he
chose not to.
    I like the TNE rules IN COMPARISON to the CT and MT rules mainly due to
the enhanced options for character creation. While I don't see the combat
rules as being all that "wargamey" (I've been gaming since 1979; I've seen
MUCH more "wargamey" combat systems...), there are things about them that I
don't like. Realizing that the next version of TRAVELLER will likely look
more like MT than TNE, I've embarked on an experiment; I'm porting over the
things I like about TNE to MT. Unfortunatley that does NOT include FF&S; I'm
not that mathematically talented. But it does mean things like Background
Skills, Secondary Activities-giving characters more skills to start with. It
means looking for ways to bring over things like HEPLAR drives, and the
whole TNE background.
For me, the TRAVELLER UNIVERSE is the focus of my interest; the rules, as
long as they are playable and reasonably "modern" in design (which MT is)
are secondary.
        I'm really looking forward to WHATEVER Marc Miller decides to do
with the game!

Allen Shock
(Piggybacking on his wife's account)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 11:47:18 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <01I0T9WIQYYA8XPSO1@pimacc.pima.edu>

From:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  3-FEB-1996 09:11:00.86
To:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC:
Subj:RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...

Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 11:02:22 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
Subject: RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Sender: traveller@MPGN.COM

In Reply to Your Message of Sat, 03 Feb 1996 05: 02:58 EST
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 1996 11:01:50 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: You can attribute 'it' to whatever you want but we both know that
: what really got you going was that you can't stand to see someone
: stand up for CT, isn't it?

 Oh yes, you're oh so right.  What's got me going is the fact that
 you're supporting one of my favorite games of all times and not your
 argument of reverse-discrimination.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

(Just a note about "The Way Things Work"; If you insult me, (the little
gem you so carefully editted out) then I will reciprocate. So if you
want to throw mud you can expect to get some thrown back.)

So Traveller is one your "favorite games"? Well considering
this venue, that's no big deal. I also assume that the moguls at GDW
said the same thing. It didn't keep them from messing it up, did it?.
=====================================================================

: OK. TNE can have the same support that non-TNE has been getting.

 Uhm, are you talking about the support that non-TNE has been getting
 from me or from GDW.  I am not GDW.  Do not attribute their inability
 to listen to what their customers want to me.  I was one of the first
 people to blast GDW for releasing TNE and refusing to support any
 other period.  I faulted them for not allow submissions to Challenge
 for anything but TNE.  And I most assuredly told them off when they
 decided to release all of those RCES products and sit on the Regency
 stuff!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But *I* am talking about GDW. And, I'm also talking about reviving
Traveller. That's where we differ. Now we already know that the TNE
rules system is history. The question is how much support will be
diverted to a background that had so little support, esp. considering
the limited resources MM will have to muster. There isn't going to
be a flood of supplements. Initial production will have to be limited.

: OK. They can have the same support non-TNE has been getting.
: To be specific TNE moves to the end of the line.

Once again, please realize that I'm not GDW.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 See above. It seems to me that your proposal will lead to the same results
 that GDW produced. There simply aren't going to be enough resources to
 fully support everything. So, I say drop TNE. I *could* say, we'll just
 lower it's priority but I would consider that dishonest since I don't be-
 lieve there will be enough to resources to supprot it. But, if it makes
 you happy, I'll say it. Of course, you can always support it yourself, as
 you have so often stated.

: Money is the reason. Where is all the money for all this simultaneous
: support going to come from? Somethings going going to have to go first
: & somethings going to have to come last. In light of it's dismal perfor-
: mance I believe TNE should come last. I also fully expect that TNE will
: never get to the head of the line due to the same financial constraints.
: If the initial products fail then I think Traveller will be dead for
: good. If they succeed then there will be pressure to build on that success.
: In other words, whichever goes first will be what Traveller will become.
: Now, since you don't seem to subscribe to this then I assume you won't
: mind putting your money where your mouth is, so to speak, & put TNE at
: the end of the list & then we'll see how much TNE stuff gets produced.

 Hmm.  I don't think that TNE will head the line either.  But this is a
 completely different argument then what you first presented.  The best
 solution would be for MM to release three sourcebooks, one for each
 era, and then concentrate resources on the era that sells the best.
 Just so you know, this would be good business practice (tm).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well I don't see any reason to pretend that support well be there for TNE
when I don't believe it will.
Do you really think MM has the resources to put out 3 quality sourcebooks
plus the new rules set, all at once? I don't.
==============================================

: You claim that non-TNE folks won't be left out in the cold but putting
: TNE first is the same thing in my book, so I don't see any difference.
: It's like saying' "You can have whatever is left over but since there
: isn't anything leftover, well, too bad!".

 I NEVER said that TNE should come first.  You said that CT should be
 the only version of Traveller supported and everyone else should suck
 the pipe.  I said that this position is no better than what GDW did
 and that all the timelines should get some form of support.  Uhm, I
 never mentioned which particular timeline should come first or what
 era should get the most support or anything like that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I believe I said Traveller should get back to where it was successful.
Funny how that seems to have agitated you so much. But, ok, if it'll
make you happy, then I'll change it to; Traveller should get back to
the CT background where it had so much success. If there are enough
resources to spare, which I don't believe for one second, then MT &
lastly TNE could be supported.
==============================

: Fine, then let's put it to the test. Put CT first, then MT, then TNE
: & let's see how much support each gets.

 No, let's put them all out at the same time and see which one sells
 the best and then put the most support into that.  If for no other
 reason than to cheese you off. 8)

       --Jerry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Really pisses you off to see someone stand up for CT doesn't it?
You'd have MM support all three even if it risks putting Traveller
under for good. Either that or you must think MM is independently
wealthy or has loads of venture capital beating down his door.
Fragmenting the initial effort will ensure a disaster. GDW made
their decisions based upon financial constraints the same constraints
MM faces. Problem was, they screwed up royal whne they decided what to
produce, squandered their limited capital & went under. I don't want to
see the same thing happen again. Forget about initially trying to support
everyone/everything. That can come later, although I don't believe that
Traveller will ever get that strong again, if it ever was.

Phil

ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 14:13:08 -0500
From: 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
To: Traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Using FF&S with MegaTraveller
Message-ID: <199602041913.OAA27069@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

 It's beginning to look to me like it might be possible to use FF&S designed
ships with MT, by translating some of the FF&S stats to MT terms. Such things as
damage points for equipment, etc. may be possible directly. Some other
things may take a little adjustment. For instance, power plants in MT tend
to be much larger than their FF&S counterparts; this is often due to high
power requirements on the part of equipment.The power requirements for the
Thruster
Plates given in FF&S are almost 5 times less than that of thruster units in MT.
Lower the power requirement, reduce the size of the needed power plant AND the
amount of power plant fuel needed.
Rather than re-doing all the shipbuilding charts for MT, what I'm trying to
do is build the ship with FF&S, convert it DIRECTLY to MT, and away we go.
Armor values are another problem, since MT ships didn't have to worry about the
VOLUME consumed by their armor.
Anybody got any ideas about this?


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 14:54:40 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <199602041954.OAA04571@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Sun, 04 Feb 1996 13: 50:34 EST
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 14:54:40 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: Well I don't see any reason to pretend that support well be there for TNE
: when I don't believe it will.
: Do you really think MM has the resources to put out 3 quality sourcebooks
: plus the new rules set, all at once? I don't.

But you have never said that you don't think TNE will not be
supproted.  You have said that you don't want TNE to be supported.
Please don't go back on your original argument now.

As for MM's resources, we don't know what resources he has available.
The argument isn't one about viability, it's about your attitude to do
to other players what GDW did to you.  Pardon me if I tend to find
that hypocritical.

: I believe I said Traveller should get back to where it was successful.
: Funny how that seems to have agitated you so much. But, ok, if it'll
: make you happy, then I'll change it to; Traveller should get back to
: the CT background where it had so much success. If there are enough
: resources to spare, which I don't believe for one second, then MT &
: lastly TNE could be supported.

No, I believe that you said that TNE should be axed completely.  I
believe you said that there were a ton of reasons that you prefered CT
over TNE and that's what made you judgement okay.  If I thought you
were making a logical argument originally, do think I would keep
flooding people's mailboxes with our trite?

: Really pisses you off to see someone stand up for CT doesn't it?
: You'd have MM support all three even if it risks putting Traveller
: under for good. Either that or you must think MM is independently
: wealthy or has loads of venture capital beating down his door.
: Fragmenting the initial effort will ensure a disaster. GDW made
: their decisions based upon financial constraints the same constraints
: MM faces. Problem was, they screwed up royal whne they decided what to
: produce, squandered their limited capital & went under. I don't want to
: see the same thing happen again. Forget about initially trying to support
: everyone/everything. That can come later, although I don't believe that
: Traveller will ever get that strong again, if it ever was.

No, it doesn't bother me to see someone stand up for CT.  I truly
believe that people should play and stand by whatever version they
like the best.  What bother's me is your poor attitude.  You would
rather have Traveller pander to you and leave others in the cold
rather than even think of making as broad an audience as possible
happy.

You want to talk about resources and capital.  That's real easy.  If
Traveller comes out in any form reminicent of ANY previous release, it
will be dead with the initial rulebook.  Why?  There is one hell of a
stigmata that hangs over the Traveller line.  Shops are weary to carry
it and players don't think that it compares to today's games.  Look at
the top selling sci-fi games of today.  Star Wars, Battlelords of the
23rd Century and Battletech.  Traveller has nothing in common with any
of them while they all have that space opera feel to them.  Go to a
gaming shop and ask people why they would rather spend their money on
these products than anything that ever carried the Traveller moniker.

The fact is that your version of Traveller will only appease those of
us (and yes, I am part of that us) that GDW angered and left high and
dry.  We are not enough of a market to support Traveller.  Players
today are looking for different things in their games.  Look at AD&D
with it's multiple game worlds and settings.  Look at all the
"Universal Systems" out there.  Gamers nowadays don't want to be
locked in to anything in specific.  They want generality.  They want a
sourcebook a month.  They want variability.  Plain and simple.  Your
vision of Traveller does not give them that.

You want financial logistics.  Fine here goes.  MM needs to create the
games and find a publisher for them.  He will not be producing them
himself.  At least that's what he's said.  So, whoever is going to
publish them is going to have to be willing to support them.  All the
material for the new version does not need to come from MM.  Remember
the heyday of Traveller when great companies made great supplements
for the game?  That's a very viable solution to this problem.

You shouldn't be so worried about which version of Traveller all of us
here have panned and all of us have raved about.  You should be
worried about the new markets that need to be tapped that won't be if
we create yet another closed version of a game where all of the good
source material that is necessary to the story-line is over 15 years
out of print.  No one new will buy into that version of Traveller.

       --Jerry

8) Jerry Alexandratos                %  "Nothing inhabits my    (8
8) darkstar@strauss.udel.edu         %   thoughts, and oblivion (8
8) darkstar@canary.pearson.udel.edu  %   drives my desires."    (8

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 08:52:39 +1300
From: Simon.Harding@vuw.ac.nz
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 575
Message-ID: <199602041952.IAA10014@rata.vuw.ac.nz>


>I agree that the growing fields of cybernetics, genetics and
>eugenics, and that sort of thing should be covered to a greater
>extent in the Traveller universe.  Cyberpunk (William Gibson, Bruce
>Sterling, etc.) are all perfect examples of what technology can
>achieve.  However, one has to remember that the 'normal' cyberpunk
>genre depicts a world where technology has run rampant: the moral and
>social implications of one piece of technology has not yet been
>discussed before that technology is being replaced by a superior
>version.
>
>It does not have to be this way in Traveller, though!  In the
>governments portrayed in Traveller - i.e., sort of feudalistic - the
>controlling body would have a greater amount of control over
>scientific progress.  Or at least, that seems kind of logical (flame,
>flame).  Would they not have been able to control the disemmination
>of "trouble" techs?  If so, then you would not necessarily have the
>"chrome and gloss" of the cyberpunk genre, but you still would have
>the high-tech that these fields would allow.  For examples of
>high-tech see basically anything by Greg Bear (Eon, Eternity, Blood
>Music, Moving Mars, etc)... this may not be exactly the direction
>that people would want Traveller moving in, but it does indicate a
>"top of the level" tech, or the kind of stuff that the Ancients would
>have been able to achieve.
>
>Of course, there would exist plants where the government did not have
>as much control over the dissemination of technology... these coud
>lead to places much like the Gibson view.  Imagine what worlds would
>be like after the Final War/Virus would have been like?
>
>--MARK
>

I agree. I would like to see Marc Miller taking some of this onboard and
hope he doesn't wrap it up in the trappings that have made some fluid game
systems into "chrome and gloss" irony fests.

Simon Harding


"A mans errors are his portals of discovery" - James Joyce

------------------------------

Date:          Sun, 4 Feb 1996 20:30:18 +0100 (BST)
From: "M.A. Trickett" <mat3@leicester.ac.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: *The* Debate...
Message-ID: <362275118CB@daisy.le.ac.uk>

First off, could anyone tell me how similar the CT system is to the
MT system.  Having not seen the first I can't make any comments on
the system.

--MARK

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 13:53:26 -0900
From: anwfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Several Responses
Message-ID: <v01530500ad3ad8f7ea70@[137.229.100.111]>

Paul:

With reguards to "Virus is rare", you need to analyze the tables in TNE, 1
in 36 wilds encounters will be a virus ship. (Maybe more, but I KNOW it's
at least 1 in 36). So the "Virus is Rare" theory is not supported by
existing rules material. Especially since a single system requires 2-5
encounters on normal ops.

I think the empress wave is a stupid idea thought of to promote sales and
force the Zho's to collapse, so that the regency could afford to go
reconqer the corridor. Probably Psionic. Probably never gonna be developed
the way it was origionally envisioned, due to GDW folding. 80-120 years
past my gaming settings; I gave up on both the new era Rules and Settings.
(If you've paid attention, I've griped about these a lot, so I will spare
you now.)

Mr Berry:

Virus more than reshaped the traveller universe; It also reshaped the link
between versimilitude and traveller, and in many people's opinions, snapped
said link. Virus operated in illogical ways, and came across as "GDW
blindly destroying the Imperiaum and Rebellion cause they couldn't keep up
the quality anyway" or the staff at GDW going "We don't like Traveller, so
lets shovel it off into T2K".

By definition, the virus is a holocaust! It more than decimated (which is a
mere 1 of 10 dies), and in many areas supposedly wiped out whole systems in
a day or two. And it spread by non-existant trade! (check Hard Times, the
traffic wouldn't have spread the virus the way TNE/Survival Margin/RSB
indicate. Not enough of it.)

Since the virus is a holocaust, of interstellar scale, the TNE Setting is
by definition a post-holocaust, unless you look at the tables, and then
it's a intra-holocaust setting, as the virus is alive and well in the
desolate wilds by the charts.


Other:
For those who think the Jump Torp is a good idea: fine! But it should never
have been allowed by GDW in the first place. It will reshape the XBoat
network. Then again, it predated a firm concept of the imperium. Allowing
it for TNE was simply a stupid idea, breaking the links down between TNE
and CT/MT even further.

TNE vs CT/MT: They don't play the same way, the attitude of both players
and GM's is much different, They are not easily convertible, and they have
a totally different backdrop. a Bad move. To quote a friend of mine (a 15+
year traveller player) "When I want to run Space Operas in flaky variant
settings, I run TNE; when I run real traveller, I use Mega!"

To those who blame the game system:

Tunnels and Trolls is STILL in print, never having changed their rules to
"modern" styles. Same with AD&D and D&D; they are slowly evolving. TNE was
not a modern system either, but a late 80's system stretched to do
something else. GDW seems to have had a thing for invulnerable PC's and
massive warfare; everything since T2K 2nd Ed has had that kind of feel.
Mega had war, but not invulnerable PC's.

I will support MM whichever way he goes. But dont even try to stop me from
campaigning for a divorce of Virus and the RC/RSB timelines from the
"Historical" ones. I don't want it out of print; I just don't want it
called "Mainstream Traveller" There will be room for two settings in the
timelines, and many fine TNE unnacceptable. Either as a ruleset or as a
background, and many for both.

-Wil

William F. Hostman

EMail:          ANWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU
HomePage:       http://orion.alaska.edu/~aswfh/index.html

------------------------------

End of TRAVELLER Digest 580
***************************
